| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Education
- That the draft Education (Amendment of the Curriculum Requirements for Fourth Key Stage) (England) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 30th October, be approved.—[Mr. Ainger.]
School Transport (Essex)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]
5.53 pm
Mr. Alan Hurst (Braintree): I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the important matter of free transport to denominational schools in Essex. I am pleased to see my parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), in his place this evening, and my hon. Friends the Members for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard), for Harwich (Mr. Henderson) and for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) are here too.
The genesis of the provision of free school transport lies in the Education Act 1944. That landmark legislation was brought before the House by the great reforming Minister—the great Prime Minister that the Conservative party never had—the right hon. R.A. Butler. He was a part-predecessor of mine in that he represented the three villages of Gosfield, Earls Colne and White Colne, which are now in the Braintree parliamentary division, but were then in Saffron Walden.
Since that time, it has been the invariable practice of education authorities to provide free school transport for pupils whose parents have chosen to enrol them in a denominational secondary school. Such provision is subject to the school being more than 3 miles from home and the nearest school of that denomination. In Essex, with one exception, all the schools affected will be Catholic schools in practice. In 1998, the county council ended free school transport for Catholic sixth forms, but it now proposes to end all free transport for Catholic secondary schools in the county, unless the school is more than 3 miles from home and is the nearest school of any type. In practice, that would mean that a child is compelled to go whatever school is nearest if the distance is more than 3 miles.
Thus, free transport to secondary schools would be ended for every Catholic child in the county, irrespective of their parents' financial circumstances and the school's distance from home. Instead of the free system, the county proposes a charge of £100 per term per child. In its generosity, it is to reduce that amount to £40 for parents whose income is below the qualifying level for income-based jobseeker's allowance. Essex county council indicated that the change would take place for the next school term, which is barely eight weeks away. At least, that was the position until some point this afternoon, when a county policy meeting occurred and the council backtracked somewhat on its earlier proposal. It is now proposing to introduce whatever changes it will make next September.
Frankly, I do not see that as a major concession to the principle of free school transport in our county. The original proposal breached the departmental guidelines, which say that, unless there are compelling reasons, policy should be changed only at the beginning of the school year. I believe that the faith of the county council is also being tested further than that. An implied contract exists not in law, but in ethics, between the county and parents, who will have read the prospectuses
of Catholic secondary schools in deciding which school they would send their children to and would have been assured that free school transport was available.
Mr. Ivan Henderson (Harwich): There are two Catholic primary schools in my constituency—St. Joseph's in Harwich and St. Clare's in Clacton. The only option that children from both schools have is to go to St. Benedict's in Colchester. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unfair to force a charge of £100 a term on those children's parents now they are attending that school in Colchester? Those parents only option is to pay the money if they can afford to do so or to pull their children out and send them to another school, which would completely disrupt their education.
Mr. Hurst: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, the position that he describes replicates that of children in my division who attend the same secondary school in Colchester as those in Clacton and Harwich. In my judgment, there is a lack of good faith in allowing parents to put down their child's name for one school on the basis a particular premise, after which the authority changes the rules halfway or a few weeks into the process. That does not seem an even-handed system for parents. Hon. Members will realise that the proposals have caused uproar in Essex.
Mr. Kerry Pollard (St. Albans): Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a problem not only in Essex, but in my county, Hertfordshire, where many parents are worried that the same thing may happen? Does he agree that some new thinking is required? For example, school starting times could be staggered so as to let older pupils start at 8 o'clock in the morning or transport, could be collectivised in the same way as county supplies so that several counties could join in providing the transport system.
Mr. Hurst: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Imaginative ideas are needed to resolve these difficulties, but provision for children should be at the forefront in our minds.
I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) in the Chamber. He no longer represents a division of the county, but one of the lost territories, if I can put it that way. He may have the opportunity to tell us how the borough of Southend is dealing with the matter.
Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East): I know that the hon. Gentleman always tries to be fair, so will he make it clear to his colleagues—who are listening carefully to him—that no decision has yet been made, and the only reason why the county has to consider this and other horrible plans is the appalling financial settlement that Essex has received from the Government? On that particular point, does he realise that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) went to see the Minister only yesterday to try to obtain further money for education because we are so short of it in Southend, even though we are very careful? He said that we could put the rates up more. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the county is in a difficult position because of the
appalling financial settlement that it has had from the Government, and it does not want to do nasty things like charging for school transport.
Mr. Hurst: Generosity is a virtue in humankind, but I fear that it was misplaced in allowing such an intervention. I have tried to avoid even naming which party is running the county council or the borough of Southend, and it was not my intention to inquire into the financial management of either, notwithstanding the fact that both have received substantial increases in the past six years. It is for residents in both county and borough to consider whether the financial resources allocated to those areas are properly managed. I had hoped to avoid partisanship, and I shall seek to continue to do so for the remainder of my speech, unless misled in another direction.
The county council has conducted a consultation exercise. If there is one word that strikes terror into the minds of everyone in public life, it is the word "consultation", which should usually be put in inverted commas. The council omitted formally to consult school governors, who are now an important part of any education system and bear great responsibilities. There was no formal consultation of governing bodies. The council heard from school governors because parents speak to them, and that was how they learned about the consultation exercise.
I understand that a petition with more than 2,500 names has been delivered to the county council, objecting to the proposals. Some 1,000 letters of protest have been received, and only five in favour. If consultation has any meaning close to that shown in a standard English dictionary, I would have thought that the county council would concede that the consultation has reached a verdict and abandon its proposals. Hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that that has not, alas, been the case.
Mr. Hurst: The hon. Gentleman says "Yet", if my ears do not deceive me. I accept that the council met this afternoon and has slightly diluted its proposals by putting back the start date. I understand that it has also raised the prospect that because of the disruption and hardship that could be caused to children in their GCSE year, it may re-examine that aspect of the proposal. Frankly, that does not satisfy me and it will not satisfy the parents in the county of Essex.
The Braintree parliamentary division does not include a Catholic secondary school. The children from Catholic families travel to Colchester, to St. Benedict's, or to Chelmsford, to St. John Payne. I have spoken to parents and governors of both schools. The headmaster at St. Benedict's, Mr. Alan Whelan, tells me that he has about 500 children in receipt of free school transport. Mr. Frank McAvoy, headmaster of St. John Payne, has about 680 children in receipt of free school transport. The best estimate one can make is that some 250 children from the Braintree parliamentary division travel to Catholic secondary schools every day.
The arguments against the proposal are overwhelming. For a start, it would discriminate against poorer families. A family with three children in
secondary education would be charged £900 per annum from taxed income. Even those on benefit would need to find £120 a year, or more than £2 a week. The poorest would suffer, and the threat is already demoralising parents and children. One school fears that it has already lost four pupils.There is also discrimination against the Catholic community. Catholic parishes originally paid 25 per cent. of the cost of constructing the two secondary schools that serve mid and North Essex, and today they continue to contribute 10 per cent. of the cost of external maintenance and renovation. In fact, I am told that the Catholic community has recently paid £20,000 towards the cost of a new roof for St. Francis Catholic primary school in Braintree. Catholic parents already pay over and above what other parents pay towards their children's education. As a consequence, they are saving the county council costs that it would otherwise have to find. To add transport costs is unfair and, frankly, demeaning to the county council.
Savings are like a will-o'-the-wisp: exactly what the savings are and where they will come from can never be pinned down. If the charging policy is introduced, Catholic schools rolls may well reduce. Without being an advanced mathematician, I can say that, as a consequence, the average cost per child to the county will rise if there are fewer children but the establishment remains much the same.
Many Catholic children who live in rural areas will still be entitled to free school transport to their nearest county school. The transport costs will remain, but they will go to a different school. I know that hon. Members can imagine the disruption that that will cause to young children's education, so it is not for me to say more about that. Those children will be taken away from a secondary school, where they had friends whom they have been with ever since they entered primary school, and they will go to a school where they know virtually no one, part way through their school careers. I cannot understand how the consequences of that will produce any saving of any kind to the county, the parents or the children.
I cannot speak for other parts of the county, but most of the schools in Braintree district are already over-subscribed. Accommodating extra children who have been driven out of their schools of choice by the charging policy will produce a cost to the county for new buildings, extra teachers and equipment. The costs will just move along. How the county council could imagine in its great foresight that introducing that policy would not outrage all right-thinking people way beyond the Catholic community I do not know. How it thought that it could introduce it without medium and long-term costings I do not know. How it thought that it could introduce it at the beginning of January, when it has not even completed the process in mid-November, is beyond comprehension.
The consequence of the policy and driving out poorer children from the schools of their choice will be to change the nature of Catholic secondary schools. Those schools admit children irrespective of parental background or academic achievement. If the ending of free school transport causes children from poorer backgrounds to transfer to other schools, their places
may be taken by non-Catholics from better-off families. The character of those schools may be imperilled over time.Almost finally, I wish to deal with traffic congestion because this is partly a transport debate as well as an education debate. In some ways, although it would be a conceit, perhaps two Ministers should reply to the debate rather than one, but I appreciate that it is not beyond my hon. Friend the Minister's ability to speak about transport as well as education. All hon. Members know the effects of taking children to and from school on travel congestion. What joy it is, when the school holidays come, to be able to drive to any place that one wishes and arrive on time and, occasionally, even before time.
It has been estimated that between 8 and 9 o'clock in the morning, 11 per cent. of all cars on the road in term time are taking children to school. When we reach the magical point of 10 minutes to 9, 20 per cent. of all cars on the road are involved in school trips. To take away free school transport can only aggravate the situation and a greater burden will be placed on parents, children and other road users. There is a particular problem for parents with children at both a local primary school and a secondary school. The primary school, particularly one in the Catholic faith, is likely to be in one town, and the secondary school is highly likely to be in another town many miles distant. There is some considerable distance between Chelmsford and Braintree, so it would be necessary for those parents to be in two places at the same time as they transport their children to school.
The single most effective way, in my judgment, to reduce car traffic congestion is to increase rather than diminish school transport. It is for that reason that the Government have tested yellow bus schemes in three separate areas and are bringing forward proposals in a jauntily named document, "Beating the traffic—a new approach to the school run". I raised this matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and he replied to me in a letter dated 13 October. In that letter he indicated that local authorities would be invited to pilot schemes to support children travelling to denominational schools. It is my judgment that the county council would be far better advised to work closely with the Secretary of State to see not only how free school transport can be retained in our county, but how it can be increased and enhanced.
The action of the county council flies in the face of all considered thinking about both transport and education. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister who is kindly replying to this debate to seek to persuade those in charge at Essex county council to reconsider and to return free school transport to Catholic secondary schools in the county of Essex.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |